News

PUC recommends overhauling rail worker safety

By Matthias Gafni

Contra Costa Times

Posted:
10/31/2013 05:53:28 AM PDT

Updated:
10/31/2013 05:53:34 AM PDT

A state agency is poised to create first-of-its-kind rail worker safety laws governing BART and other transit agencies, including emergency interim requirements in response to the deaths of two BART workers earlier this month.

Specifically citing the Oct. 19 double-fatal BART accident in Walnut Creek, the California Public Utilities Commission board is expected to vote Thursday to require transit agencies to immediately create three-way communication among central command, train operators and wayside workers. All parties must confirm their locations, safety protections being used and the implementation of those protections before a train enters a work area, according to the proposal. Train speed restrictions and warning flags would also be required in work areas, the agency recommends.

The new proposals require the testing of new train-warning technology. However, the PUC backed off immediately requiring such equipment largely because BART voiced opposition in September, a month before a BART train driven by a trainee struck and killed 58-year-old Christopher Sheppard, a BART employee, and 66-year-old Laurence Daniels, a rail consultant. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the accident, which occurred during the most recent BART strike. Sheppard and Daniels were working under the controversial "simple approval" practice, in which employees are allowed to enter the right of way as trains continue at full speed, making ground workers largely responsible for their own safety.

Advertisement

BART has fought any changes to that protocol since its last worker death in 2008, which also involved simple approval. But BART abandoned that protocol entirely last week.

In a statement late Wednesday, BART spokeswoman Alicia Trost said BART "is fully supportive of the proposed rules."

"Presently, as BART revamps its roadway worker protection rules and procedures to reflect the recent elimination of the 'Simple Approval' process for access to the mainline, we are doing so while incorporating the requirements and language of (the PUC's proposed rules)," Trost said.

Representatives of BART's unions did not immediately return calls for comment Wednesday.

The PUC began drafting a worker-safety plan in 2008 after that BART employee's death and another fatal accident involving a Sacramento Regional Transit District rail worker. The dozen rail transit agencies in California have their own right-of-way worker-protection programs. However, unlike freight railroads and other railway systems, federal and state regulators have not imposed rules covering worker safety at transit agencies.

The PUC found "that the affected rail transit employees, both roadway workers and train operators, were not sufficiently aware of the immediate hazards when they were working on or near the track."

Many of the state's proposed requirements BART already implemented after the 2008 death, such as requiring a lookout and a predetermined safe refuge area. However, many are new and potentially expensive.

Transit agencies would be required to begin looking into "positive train control" technology that better coordinates train operations and claims to prevent collisions. However, the equipment is in its infancy.

Among the other 11 agencies in the state that would come under these rules are the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

If the PUC plan is approved, within a year agencies would need to test trackway early warning alarm technology that warns wayside crews of approaching trains and report back results. Within four years, each agency would have to implement warning equipment.

During the vetting process of the new regulations, BART Chief Safety Officer Jeffrey Lau sent comments on behalf of the agency Sept. 23 questioning whether the new technology is effective.

"Wayside technology may not include the fail-safe features or may possess deficiencies which (transit agencies) find to be undesirable," Lau wrote. "(The agencies) must have the authority to decide against such implementation."

The PUC agreed: "Early warning technology ... is not fail-safe, is not fully tested, and thus should not be ordered at this time. The requirement would be cost-prohibitive and duplicative."

The commission amended its original draft that had required agencies to immediately implement such technology.

Lau also asked for leeway on "simple approval" allowances, "permitting BART to retain more 'operational flexibility.'"

The PUC also proposed installing backup alarms on track maintenance equipment within a year. Lau wrote that such alarms would violate noise ordinances along BART tracks near neighborhoods, and the PUC added alternatives of rear cameras to prevent noise during certain hours.

The new regulations would also create graduated levels of protection based on the type of track work -- the more serious, the higher level of safety requirement.